Recent shifts in political sentiment regarding EU membership have been caused in part by a growing hostility towards globalisation. This column uses Danish evidence to analyse whether globalisation causes a polarisation of jobs in developed countries, and in particular whether it causes a loss of middle-income jobs. Rising import competition can increase income inequality, but it also accounts for a substantial part of all high-wage employment gains. The task for policymakers is to make these gains felt by the majority of citizens.

Britain voted for Brexit, but many seek ways to avoid it. This draws comparison with the events of almost exactly a year ago when the Greek government ignored the outcome of the Greek bailout referendum. This column argues that the Greek government hoped the result would crash the EU’s stock markets and thus strengthen its bargaining power. When this failed to materialise, the government ignored the plebiscite and signed the bailout extension. In the Brexit case, the observed market drops do not qualify as a collapse and so the referendum’s outcome is likely to be implemented.

The surprise outcome of the UK’s EU membership referendum is in some ways analogous to the ‘Taper Tantrum’ (the correction in financial markets following Ben Bernanke’s May 2013 suggestion that the US central bank was contemplating reducing its rate of security purchases). This column looks at whether the Brexit Surprise has had analogous effects on emerging markets. Emerging economies felt a strong negative impact that was larger and more widespread than in the case of the Taper Tantrum. Where the Taper Tantrum was mainly a financial shock, the Brexit Surprise is evidently perceived as having real as well as financial consequences.

Britain voted to leave the EU. This is terrible news for the UK, but it is also bad news for the Eurozone. Brexit opens the door to all sorts of shocks, and dangerous political snowball effects. Now is the time to shore up the Eurozone’s resiliency. The situation is not yet dire, but prompt action is needed. This VoxEU column – which is signed by a wide range of leading economists – identifies what needs to be done soon, and what should also be done but can probably wait if markets are patient.

Brexit creates new opportunities and new risks for the British and EU financial markets. Both could benefit, but a more likely outcome is a fall in the quality of financial regulations, more inefficiency, more protectionism, and more systemic risk.

During the Royal Economic Society’s Annual Conference on 22 March 2016, four panelists discussed the political and economic costs of Brexit. In this video, Richard Baldwin argues that Brexiteers hoping to regain control over their economic policy still think of trade as it was in the 20th century, when goods were made in one place and sold in another. We are not in that world anymore. Domestic political pressures would lead the UK to adopt the 'Norway option' where it would have to obey EU regulations and pay to the EU budget, all without a formal say in the shape of those regulations.

If the UK leaves the EU, what will happen to the UK economy? In this video, Anatole Kaletsky argues that Brexit would be economic suicide, or at least self-harm. A trade agreement that grants access to the Single Market implies conceding political sovereignty, contributing to the EU budget, and free movement of labour. This video was recorded during the “Economics of the UK’s EU Membership” conference organised by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research in February 2016 and held in London.

Much of the discussion about Brexit has focused on the UK and has ignored the another party – the European Union. This column examines how the UK leaving the EU would affect the distribution of power among the remaining member states. The larger members such as France and Germany would likely benefit directly from Brexit, at least in terms of power.

A large amount of business done in the City is linked to the UK’s membership of the EU. In this video, Karl Whelan discusses the impact of Brexit for the UK’s financial sector. He also argues that leaving the EU would take away the UK’s voice in shaping future legislation, which it would nonetheless have to follow in order to retain access to the Single Market. This video was recorded during the “Economics of the UK’s EU Membership” conference organised by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research in February 2016 and held in London.

This week’s UK referendum on EU membership is likely to have both short- and long-term effects on the country’s financial sector. This column, which reports the views of panel members in the monthly Centre for Macroeconomics survey, finds that almost all think that a vote for Brexit would lead to a significant disruption to financial markets and asset prices for several months, putting the Bank of England on high alert. On top of the risk of a financial crisis in the near future, an unusually strong majority agrees that there would be substantial negative long-term consequences. No panel member expects the overall consequences of a Brexit outcome to be beneficial for the UK economy – the first time since this survey began that one side of the argument is supported by none of the respondents.

For decades, the UK government has been very careful in ensuring a low-risk status for its public and private debt. This column warns that if the UK opts to leave the EU, uncertainty over the implications of Brexit would put this low-risk status in jeopardy. A depreciation of the pound could well generate an export boom, but this would not compensate for the damage to internal demand and to the UK’s ability to access external financing of its deficits.

As Europe heads towards Parliamentary elections, this VideoVox looks at the economic benefits of EU membership. On average, European countries are 12% richer a decade after they join the EU. The UK is 24% better off since joining in 1973. The video was recorded in March 2014.

We are fortunate to have a consensus of views on the negative impact of leaving the EU. This column explains how a rational agent should ‘consume’ this advice. Theory tends to say that we should be wary of the motivation of those who forecast at the extreme, but that we should still put weight on the central case.

If the UK leaves the EU, what's next for the economy? In this video, Nicholas Crafts of the University of Warwick discusses the impact of EU membership on the British economy. The type of agreement the UK would reach outside the EU is most important, and the risks outweigh the potential gains. This video was shot during the “Economics of the UK’s EU Membership” conference organised by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) on 23 February 2016 and held in London.

To the EU’s critics, the cost of regulations emanating from Brussels have become so great that they outweigh the – as they see it – modest benefits of single market membership. In this video, John Springford (CER) tests this claim against the evidence. He points out that the EU’s regulations and directives reduce the cost of trade between member-states – and that critics fail to take that into account. This video was recorded in June 2016 during the “Economics of the UK-EU Relationship” workshop at Brunel University London.

The history of European integration has been characterized by several ‘stops-and-goes’ with considerable support on political grounds. In this video, Corrado Macchiarelli (Brunel) discusses the role of European integration for the future of the EU-UK relations. Integration, consistent with the idea of ‘completing’ the European Monetary Union (hence, a ‘Genuine Economic and Monetary Union’- GEMU) would affect the UK as well, irrespective of whether it will withdraw from the EU. Costs and benefits of EU membership should hence take GEMU into account. This video was recorded in June 2016 during the “Economics of the UK-EU Relationship” workshop at Brunel University London.

The European Union (EU) spends a large share of its budget on regional policy, what are the implications for the UK? In this video, Peter Egger (ETH Zurich) concludes that overall regional transfers across the EU give value for money. However, there is room for further improvement in the design of EU regional transfers to make them more effective. He argues UK regions have benefited from EU regional policy over the last decades and that there is uncertainty for those regions that benefit from substantial amounts of EU funding (e.g. Cornwall) over what would replace those funds after an eventual Brexit. This video was recorded in June 2016 during the “Economics of the UK-EU Relationship” workshop at Brunel University London.

European Union facilitates the inflows of Foreign Direct Investment into its members. In this video, Randolph Bruno (UCL) discusses the results of his research on how inflows of investment capital from foreign countries (FDI) into the EU Members has been on average 28 percentage points higher than non-EU members in the 1985 to 2013 period. He also argues that the UK is one of the countries for which the effect is higher than this average. This video was recorded in June 2016 during the “Economics of the UK-EU Relationship” workshop at Brunel University London.

How does the current UK financial infrastructure contrast with how such infrastructure might look like post Brexit? In this video, Angus Armstrong (NIESR) focuses on the role of financial services. He noted that the UK has a systemically large domestic banking system (different from e.g. Luxembourg) so regulation plays differently. He highlighted the issue of the of emergency liquidity assistance provision. Unusually, Eurozone infrastructure extents to the EEA, which allows the UK to be centre of Euro wholesale finance. This video was recorded in June 2016 during the “Economics of the UK-EU Relationship” workshop at Brunel University London.

The impact of EU membership on British growth performance both past and future is somewhat controversial. In this video, Nicholas Crafts (Warwick) gives his assessment of the evidence. He suggests that the UK’s entry into the EU in the 1970s had strong positive effects in particular because it addressed issues of weak competition but that Brexit now would lower the income level through adverse effects on trade without addressing any of the 21st-century supply-side problems that hold UK growth back. This video was recorded in June 2016 during the “Economics of the UK-EU Relationship” workshop at Brunel University London.